The arguing isn't over, but one thing is certain: Flint will not shut down come Sunday despite the ongoing budget dispute.

"No city services will be shut down under any circumstances," Mayor Don Williamson said.

At least on this point, the administration and City Council agree. The rest is up for debate - and debate they did in competing press conferences Friday.

First, two council leaders held a morning news conference to warn that they believe the city soon could be in violation of state law because of its ongoing budget dispute.

"It is important for us to work together to get this resolved by July 1," said Councilman Jim Ananich, chairman of the Finance Committee. "I just want to make sure we're in compliance with state law."

Based on state law, the city's 2007-08 fiscal year starts Sunday.

"We do have a properly adopted budget," Williamson said in his afternoon press conference.

The City Council passed a budget on June 4 which the mayor vetoed on June 8 - and that's where the dispute lies.

The administration claims Williamson only vetoed parts of the budget, and the remainder still will go into effect at the start of the fiscal year.

City Attorney Trachelle Young cited a section of the City Charter which states, in part, that "the mayor may veto any amendment to the budget" to support their argument.

The charter does not say the mayor must veto the entire budget, Young said.

Williamson vetoed some, but not all, of the expenses added to his proposed budget by the council, as well as the form of the budget, which council made into a specific line-item budget instead of a more general departmental document.

Some City Council members, including Ananich and Council Vice President Sheldon Neeley, said a partial veto is not possible, so no budget exists.

City Council unanimously voted earlier this week to request an outside attorney for an independent opinion on the issue.

Without a new budget agreement, Neeley said, "we'll all become outlaws" and said he was worried that the lack of a budget could lead to another state takeover.

Both sides agreed, though, that city services would continue despite the dispute.